1. ' This appeal has been filed to challenge the legality of order dated 7-11-1995 of the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Mardan whereby while accepting the grievance petition of the petitioner-respondent moved under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, he was reinstated in service with full back benefits.
2. ' The petitioner-respondent was employed in the establishment of the appellants but his services were terminated on 10-7-1994 on the ground of certain charges allegedly amounting to misconduct. The grievance notice proved ineffective, therefore, grievance petition under section 25-A of the I.R.O., was filed which was accepted through the order challenged in this appeal.
3. ' I heard the learned Advocates representing the parties and went through the record.
4. ' The basis for the removal from service is the charge-sheet Exh. R.W. 1/2 which reads: {{URDU TEXT}} The bare reading of this charge-sheet would, therefore, show that it is vague and does not disclose the grounds on which the charges are based. The learned Labour Court was, therefore, correct to hold that such indefinite and vague charges are not sufficient to justify removal from service. The statement of R.W. 1 is also interesting as he stated "There is nothing in writing about the inquiry anyhow the inquiry was conducted. It is correct that I am nothing possession the record today regarding the absence of the petitioner." It is, thus, obvious that even no enquiry was conducted into the charges levelled against the petitioner-respondent. The impugned order to the extent of reinstatement is, therefore, legal and is upheld. It is, however, obvious that the onus of having remained jobless during the period of termination was on the petitioner-respondent but he has said nothing in his statement about this fact to discharge the initial burden of proof. Moreover, it appears that the conduct of the petitioner-respondent is not that much above board to entitle him to the back benefits. The portion of the order allowing back benefits to the petitioner-respondent is, therefore, reversed. The appeal is dismissed with the above modification. There will be no order as to costs.